Rename implementations section to tools

[benjagm]

GitHub Issue: #320
Resolves: #320

Summary: This PR renames the Implementations section in favour of Tools

Do you think resolving this issue might require an Architectural Decision Record (ADR)? (significant or noteworthy)

No

[cloudflare-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	c55e0cc
Status:	✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL:	https://2b360dd0.website-2v2.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL:	https://benjagm-tools-rename.website-2v2.pages.dev

View logs

[Relequestual]

Thanks!
How do we plan to handle redirects?

[benjagm]

Thanks! How do we plan to handle redirects?

The url is the same. I just renamed the title/buttons.

[Relequestual]

We should also do https://json-schema.org/obsolete-implementations
Happy if you want that to be a separate PR, but I think it could be in this one.

[benjagm]

We should also do https://json-schema.org/obsolete-implementations
Happy if you want that to be a separate PR, but I think it could be in this one.

I just pushed the change to rename that page as well.

[Relequestual]

OK. I'm fine with this if we also create a new good first issue to clean up the rest of the site to use "tools" rather than "implementations" everywhere but the spec documents (because we don't change those. I think that would accurately reflect what we want to see.

And in the code, to make it less confusing.

[gregsdennis]

everywhere but the spec documents (because we don't change those.

Also consider that the spec does need to define its term for "implementation". I still think that it needs to be "software that performs the tasks defined in the spec", which are just validation and annotation.

[praveen-rikhari]

Hello @benjagm I was going through the preview for this branch but I still see that we have implementations term being used in the body of the Tools at a lot of places, I was wandering, should that be done in a different PR??

[praveen-rikhari]

Here are some of them

[Relequestual]

Hello @benjagm I was going through the preview for this branch but I still see that we have implementations term being used in the body of the Tools at a lot of places, I was wandering, should that be done in a different PR?? - @praveen-rikhari

Hey. Yes. See #321 (comment) =]
You are welcome to create the new Issue if you like.

[praveen-rikhari]

cool @Relequestual i will create one then that covers handling use of all the implementations term usage

[Relequestual]

@praveen-rikhari Please reference this issue when you do. Thanks.